Asymmetric Lawfare

American Thinker 

The Left can be badly weakened — perhaps even broken.  The process has a misleadingly dry name — civil asset forfeiture.

This legal procedure allows law enforcement officials — typically the Attorney General or a District Attorney — to seize property based solely on suspicion of criminal activity.  No criminal charge, let alone conviction, is required.  The justification rests on the extraordinary legal fiction that the property itself, rather than its owner, is the defendant.  However implausible that premise may seem, it is firmly embedded in American law and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Supreme Court.

A common fiction is that it’s applied solely against organized crime.  In reality it’s often against the innocent.

Between 2000 and 2021, 82 billion dollars, in the form of real estate, commercial businesses, cash, and financial instruments has been taken by forfeiture.

For the initial seizure of property, the government need only establish a reasonable basis to believe the asset contributed to criminal activity.  In other words, there must be a plausible suspicion.  If the owner challenges the seizure, the government then needs to meet only the low preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — that is, show that the forfeiture is more likely warranted than not (often described at “50 percent plus a feather”).  The forfeiture is a civil, not a criminal case.  But contesting the seizure can pose very serious problems for the party whose property was seized.  Contesting exposes the claimant to broad discovery by the government, including interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, depositions and subpoenas for records held by third parties, any of which can lead to felony charges.

The government has further critical advantages.  Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the forfeiture is contested, the government can demand a jury trial.  It will — because  under Rule 48, the verdict against the government must be unanimous.  Otherwise, a mistrial is declared, and the property stays with the government.

There is profound asymmetry here.  Granted, there is the right to appeal after an unfavorable verdict arguing that the seizure was grossly disproportionate.

But to appeal requires a final judgement.  A mistrial does not allow this option.  Possession is 9/10th of the law.

The public thinks the most powerful tool law enforcement has against organized crime is the RICO Act.  In RICO however, the initial petition for seizure will not be granted unless there is a pre-existing criminal conviction. This requires the beyond a reasonable doubt standard — an extremely difficult standard to reach.

Civil asset forfeiture is exponentially more practical than RICO.

There are enterprises with far more impact than drug cartels.  Many of these are NGOs and non-profits.  The public thinks these are charities, but these terms primarily mean that their profits are not dispersed as dividends.  The stereotypical NGO is the Southern Poverty Law Center.  It has an endowment of $822 million.  In April 2026, the US Department of Justice indicted the SPLCon multiple counts.  Prosecutors allege that from 2014–2023, the organization secretly funneled over 3 million dollars to individuals associated with or leaders in extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.  If approached under forfeiture law, no criminal charge need be filed.  Its assets can be seized.  Criminality need only be suspected.

The forfeiture statute is 18 U.S.C. § 981.  It states “any property, real or personal, involved in certain offenses, or traceable to such property, can be forfeited”.  The subsequent wording includes cash, bank accounts, real estate, business assets, and assets titled in the name of a corporation or LLC.  Those offences, however, must involve a specified unlawful activity e.g. federal program fraud.

If a non-profit, NGO, foundation, or institution draws from its wealth in facilitating a covered crime, that wealth can be seized.

The White House has disclosed NGOs funding ANTIFA and violence across the U.S.  These include not only Soros and his Open Society Foundation, but the Arabella Funding Group and the Tides Foundation Network.

There is a far more significant argument for civil asset forfeiture.

The election of 2020 was likely fraudulent, but over 60 cases were tossedlargely on standing and technicalities.

Fraudulent mail-in ballots are mail fraud, a specified unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C § 981.  Bringing forfeiture action against the assets of any organization reasonably suspected of playing a role in vote fraud would have effectively bypassed the Court’s evasions and forced the alleged fraud to trial.  If the party did not contest the seizure, it would have been an admission to the public of guilt.  If it did contest the seizure, it would open the floodgates.   The burden of proof the government would need would merely be that of “more likely than not.”

That train has left the station.  There is a five-year statute of limitations for bringing civil or criminal charges.

Democrats, however, have shown the way around the statute.

E. Jean Carroll alleged in June 2019 that Trump assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in the mid 1990s, while she was trying on lingerie.  In May 2022, New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act, allowing adult sexual assault claims to be brought even if the civil statute of limitations had expired.  Financed through an NGO by Reid Hoffman, Carroll filed suit in November 2022.  She was awarded 5 million dollars for sexual abuse and 83.3 million dollars for defamation.

Just as legislation was crafted to circumvent the statute of limitations against Trump, legislation could be drafted to expand the statute of limitations for election fraud.

E. Jean Carroll’s case is significant not only for demonstrating how to circumvent the statute of limitations.  It also effectively erased the lowest of standards for the burden of proof — more likely than not — and removed any pretense of proportionality in remedy.

What is proposed here will be anathema to small government/Libertarian Republicans.   Libertarians approach the conflict with the Left as a competition — a contest in the free market of ideas.  They operate on the assumption that we have a functioning legal and political system.  We do, and it functions for the Left.

With Carroll, the Left has exposed their true colors as regards to law.  With 2020, they exposed their true colors as regards to elections.

Much, if not most of the Left, is Zohran Mamdani and those who vote for him.  They view America, like Israel, as a settler enterprise, to be decolonized.

We need clarity here — a need to face reality.  This is not mere partisan rivalry with Democrats but an existential war with the Left.

Sowell teaches there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.  The tradeoff here is already factored in.

Soros-financed District Attorneys now run multiple jurisdictions, including nearly all our largest cities.

They are certainly aware of the vast power of civil asset forfeiture.  For them, its political use is not yet ripe.  Once the Supreme Court is packed, it will be.

Pre-emptive is bad optics, but that’s the only downside.

This window of opportunity will not come again.

There may be other weapons to defeat the Left, but none come to mind.

Podcast thread for July 6

 

Does the 1st day after a holiday weekend have to be so bleh?

Chip Away at Birthright Citizenship Until We Can Finish It Off Entirely

Townhall 

If you ask the blackpill crew, the birthright citizenship case that we lost last week — effectively 5-4 on the constitutional issue — was a catastrophe that has doomed us to the doomiest of dooms. That’s not true for a number of reasons that we’ve discussed before, including the fact that this remarkably close decision sets us up for success down the road. But there are also things that we can do starting now that aren’t necessarily foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Constitution. That’s where we need to focus our efforts, not on wailing and gnashing our teeth. We have new opportunities, and we need to take them, until we can finally put a stake in the heart of this undead doctrine.

Now, what’s going to happen with the decision itself? How are we going to change the view of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause that says that essentially any unwanted foreigner’s brat who pops out with a placenta on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen just like you or me? Well, that’s going to take some time, some hard work, and some luck.

The most obvious way is to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that. It’s only happened 27 times in history, and 10 of them were right at the beginning when the Bill of Rights was part of the price of admission. It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to approve an amendment. Yeah, that’s not happening. The fact is that Democrats like having illegal aliens drop anchor babies who they presume will end up voting Democrat down the road. Now, that may not be true — they thought Latinos were the Great White Replacement Hope, but they started supporting Trump as the Democrats shifted from a working-class and minority focus to a focus on failson trust-fund dorks and their Third World Palestinian-hugging Islamic invader pals who demonstrate a hatred of America, a love for Hamas, and a fetish for castrating kids. A constitutional amendment just isn’t going to happen.

No, the most obvious way to change the interpretation of the citizenship clause is to change the composition of the Court that interprets it. If one of the five justices goes away through retirement or otherwise, and if there’s a Republican president, then you know the first question on everybody’s mind is going to be “Where do you stand on birthright citizenship?” just like it used to be “Where do you stand on abortion?” Most of the justices who signed onto the ruling are in pretty good shape, but Justice Sotomayor is not particularly healthy, but she’s going to hold on to that seat with a death grip until it’s a Democrat who can pick a replacement. Accordingly, this is a roll of the dice.

Choosing to sit and wait and see what happens isn’t a course of action. It’s abdication. We need to move aggressively within the constraints of the reality that’s been imposed upon us. It’s not like there’s nothing we can do to solve the problem. Let’s identify the problem. It’s anchor babies: the kids of illegal aliens who sneak across the border and start punching out kids who are American citizens and entitled to American benefits, and who may be able to avail themselves of chain migration to bring the whole family into America from Hellholeistan.

There is a subproblem of about 25,000 a year: birth tourists. That is, people who come to America on short-term visas and end up having a child who is an American citizen. The most outrageous form of this are the Chinese birth tourists, who do it on purpose to get a kid with American citizenship, which they have here after sneaking in by lying about their intent, and then immediately flying back to the People’s Republic of China with a new American citizen. There’s some controversy about anchor babies, but it’s hard to see how communists breaking the spirit, and sometimes the letter, of our laws to create an American citizen who has zero connection or loyalty to the United States of America is anything but one of those proverbial 80/20 issues. Birth tourism should therefore be a key line of conservative effort in the short term; Democrats will instinctively defend communist Chinese manufacturing American citizens as literal Manchurian candidates. They can’t help themselves. Trump is against communist manipulation of the United States, so communist manipulation of the United States must be defended.

What can we do? Well, the Justice Department is already cracking down on the companies that arrange these jaunts. However, other facets of the problem need to be addressed as well. For one thing, the Chinese often fly into the Marianas Islands territory to do their covert birthing. It turns out that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been held to apply differently, and less broadly, to unincorporated U.S. territories. Why not test the waters with a statute that essentially eliminates citizenship for the children of immigrants without permanent status in those tropical islands?

Passing a law is tough, thanks to the filibuster. But this is an election year. Despite working those lengthy 3-day weeks with long vacations, maybe the GOP Congress can take a day and make the Democrats go on record supporting birthright tourism. The donkey party will totally do it – Trump’s against it so they must be for it, plus it helps Marxists so they are all in. Then we can then totally beat them with their complicity in communist chicanery like they are rented mules.

And when that fails, because they can’t allow America to win if Trump (and their own constituents) win as well, Trump should try an executive order. Even if it gets tossed out as exceeding his executive authority, he will still have made his point.

There are other things that can be done, both on the birth tourism and the anchor baby issues. Some might need to be statutes, but the administration should look for ways to do them through executive orders. One thing would be to prioritize the deportation of pregnant women; we could also detain them in Gitmo on Cuban soil. Obviously, you would want to limit the admission of those potentially with child. Certainly, we could decree that a woman who gives birth in the United States when not a permanent resident would forever be barred from the country. That negates the chain migration incentive.

As for the child, there are challenges because under current law, he is an American citizen. However, maybe we can remedy that. In circumstances where a kid is born here to a mother who shouldn’t be here and then immediately whisked away to a foreign country, particularly one that is hostile to the United States, maybe we could begin denaturalization proceedings. There may be some problems with that since it’s punitive and would implicate due process, but that’s all right. Let’s see how that works as it bubbles up through the courts. We can certainly try to bar such pseudo-citizens from chain migration — if you were born here when you shouldn’t be, you can’t bring any of your family here. As for classic anchor babies, maybe we should limit their access to welfare on the understanding that wrongdoers are benefiting from their wrongdoing. Now, these will have equal protection problems, but there are potential ways around that. The point is to try.

We should try lots of things, and there will be lots of ideas. Let’s give them a shot. Understand that we are working around the margins, nibbling at the edges of the problem, but that’s better than just sitting there and staring at the actuarial tables hoping our problem solves itself during a window of time with a Republican president. The point is we are not helpless. The point is this is not hopeless. We’re going to win this. And now is the time, with a little creative legal thinking and a little political savvy, to start putting some wins up on the scoreboard.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Democrats Reveal Radical Plans If They Seize Power, Trump Warns GOP Will Be ‘Dead’ If They Succeed

RedState 

The Democrats aren't even bothering to pretend any longer. 

Key House Democratic caucus leaders have now put pen to paper on their radical intentions should they regain control of Congress after the midterms—killing the Senate filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court the second they are sworn in.

The latest admission comes via a resolution put forth by progressive, black, and Hispanic caucus chairs, as reported by Politico just over a week ago. The groups are pushing hard for these changes in response to recent Voting Rights Act decisions they don’t like.

While the resolution has virtually no chance of passing in the current Congress, it serves as an early marker for the aggressive agenda extremist progressives and key Democratic groups intend to pursue if they regain full control after the 2026 elections.

President Trump jumped all over the news in a Truth Social media post on Sunday afternoon.

"They do this, and the Republican Party is DEAD!" he warned.

Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post - 12:32 PM ET 07.05.26: They do this, and the Republican Party is DEAD! Key House caucus leaders target Supreme Court, Senate filibuster:

In a follow-up post, Trump doubled down on the warning, highlighting how Democrats are already clearly signaling they will eliminate the 60-vote Senate threshold in their very first hour back in power.

Trump warned that this would open the floodgates to a nightmare scenario: Democrats packing the Supreme Court with activist judges, adding new friendly states to skew the Electoral College, and cementing a built-in advantage that could keep Republicans out of the White House for decades.

"There is nothing Americans can’t do except get Voter ID (Identification), Proof of Citizenship or, most importantly of all, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER," he quipped, noting that Democrats will have no issue taking action on something Republicans seem so hesitant or cowardly to pursue.

"(When, not if, Dems nuke the filibuster), it will be impossible for a Republican to ever be elected President again," Trump warned. "I don’t want to be the last Republican President!"

"GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!"

The resolution was followed by Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-CT) hesitant admission last week that radicals in his party view the filibuster as a major obstacle to their agenda and are eager to "reform" or eliminate it once they regain power.

"Of course, we're going to have to compromise, but we're not going to get any of this stuff done as long as the filibuster stops us from doing it," he said. "And if Democrats gain power, we are going to have to reform the filibuster so we can get our core economic ideas done, or nobody is going to vote for us ever again."

Murphy went on to say he would prefer taking the “reform” route first, but added that in his mind, the GOP has “the system rigged,” making the outright elimination of the filibuster a very real option.

The President has repeatedly insisted that Republicans kill the filibuster now, while they can, to pass the SAVE America Act, rather than allowing Democrats to do it later when they regain power. He views the Act as key to ensuring secure elections and thus delivering GOP victories.

In multiple Truth Social posts, he has urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to take action so Republicans can secure voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements on a party-line vote, warning that failing to act would be a catastrophic mistake.

When will they listen?

Bill Clinton's July 4th Post Proves the Democratic Party Is Truly Done

RedState 

As we've been reporting, most Americans are all-in, celebrating and enjoying America 250. We recognize the great gift we have been given with this nation and the principles it espouses. 

But even as celebrations are ongoing, you see folks on the left going all-in to attack it because of their Trump hatred or their hatred of America in general. We saw the Mayor of New York City deliver an ugly speech, for example. That was taken down with pointed responses from people like Elon Musk and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. 

But if there was a real sign of how far the Democrats have gone off the leftist cliff, it might be the letter that former president Bill Clinton posted on Saturday. Remember, this is Clinton, who, on a relative scale with Democrats moving so far left, is now often remembered as a moderate. 

The first response might be "TLDR" (too long; didn't read). What a failure in terms of trying to make a point. 

But reading it shows how radical even he is now. I'm just going to address the worst part. 

"The people in charge have unleashed masked agents on American communities to seize people from their homes, workplaces and the street," Clinton said. 

"They have started an unconstitutional war on a whim, with no clear objectives or exit strategy, and zero regard for the consequences to the lives of millions of people around the world," he added.

Clinton didn't just attack President Donald Trump and the administration; he also attacked the Supreme Court and Congress. 

"With the help of lifetime appointees to the Supreme Court and a compliant Congress, they have weaponized government to settle personal scores, prosecute enemies, stamp out free speech and made the federal government a new profit center for themselves and their allies," he added.

Why would you drop that on July 4th? He (or whoever constructed that for him) couldn't leave this special day alone. They always have to attack America. 

Imagine this guy having the temerity to talk about misuse of government, with everything from Monica Lewinsky to what his wife's campaign did with the dossier and Russia collusion. Not to mention "profit center for themselves." 

Imagine, too, the guy whose administration sent agents into a home to snatch Elian Gonzalez and who blew up the Waco compound, talking about "masked agents." 

So Bill Clinton has jumped aboard the radical anti-ICE team, attacking the rule of law and law enforcement that helps defend America. Democrats keep pitching anger at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigration enforcement. Yet Trump didn't invent ICE, and Democrats like Clinton used to believe the same things about the problem of illegal aliens. 

"We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws," Clinton said then in 1995. 

"It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it (huge applause)." 

The only reason they are against it now is to attack Trump and influence elections. 

The Republicans need to highlight this and the rest of the craziness all the way to the midterms. 

If we didn't already know that the old Democratic Party had been taken over, Clinton's statement would prove they were truly done. What's the difference between this spew and Mamdani and his socialists? 

Not much. 

Beijing's Long-Range Missile Test Rattles Western Allies as Russia Reportedly Eyes Poland and NATO's Resolve

 

BEIJING — China fired a long-range ballistic missile from a nuclear-powered submarine into the Pacific Ocean on Monday, the first such test in nearly two years, triggering swift condemnation from New Zealand, Australia and Japan and reviving anxieties across the region about the pace of Beijing’s military expansion.

A submarine of the People’s Liberation Army Navy “launched a strategic missile carrying a dummy warhead toward relevant high seas of the Pacific Ocean, which landed precisely within the designated waters,” said Senior Capt. Wang Xuemeng, a spokesperson for the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

Beijing did not disclose what type of missile was fired. As CNN noted, the People’s Liberation Army Navy maintains two classes of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the JL-2 and the JL-3, and missile experts say the latter has enough range to strike the continental United States from waters off China’s coast, including the South China Sea — meaning that whichever variant was tested Monday, the underlying capability on display is one that realistically extends the threat envelope to North America itself, not merely to the Indo-Pacific theater.

New Zealand’s foreign minister called the test part of a recurring pattern by China, while Australia’s foreign minister described it as destabilizing to the region.

The test does not stand apart from a broader pressure campaign Beijing has mounted around Taiwan. Xi Jinping used his New Year address to call the island’s reunification with the mainland an unstoppable trend, a speech delivered one day after the Chinese military concluded live-fire war games encircling Taiwan. He has since repeated that resolving the Taiwan question is a historic and unshakable commitment of the Communist Party, language regional analysts say is deliberately eroding the ambiguity Beijing once maintained.

Eight time zones away, a parallel pressure campaign is building against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank. American intelligence has warned Warsaw that Russia may be preparing a provocation designed explicitly to test the alliance’s resolve. A source close to Polish president Karol Nawrocki told the outlet Onet that Washington systematically informs Poland about ever-new Russian plans for a conventional attack on the alliance’s eastern flank. A NATO-country ambassador and an official inside Poland’s defense ministry separately confirmed to reporters that the risk of a Russian provocation against Poland or a Baltic state is serious.

Moscow’s calculation, Polish sources say, is that Warsaw might seek a negotiated withdrawal rather than a military response, letting the Kremlin claim a strategic win while pressing Ukraine’s allies to cut off military aid. The warnings surfaced just ahead of a NATO summit in Turkey.

The Arctic is the quieter third front, and the one where Beijing and Moscow’s interests converge most directly. NATO’s Europe commander has said Russian and Chinese vessels are conducting a growing number of joint patrols, running bathymetric surveys aimed at countering alliance undersea capabilities rather than studying wildlife. A lecturer at China’s National Defense University has said openly that the military can use Arctic security cooperation as cover for reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering, and a NATO-affiliated research paper concludes that Russia’s development of the Northern Sea Route gives Beijing an avenue to introduce military and intelligence assets into the region under civilian cover.

The two powers are not confining their coordination to the high north. On Sunday, Reuters reported that the Chinese and Russian navies will hold joint exercises in the waters and airspace off the Chinese city of Qingdao next week, according to China’s defense ministry and Russian state media. “Following the exercises, some of the forces from both sides will proceed to relevant areas of the Pacific Ocean to carry out joint maritime patrols,” the ministry said in a statement — meaning that within days of Beijing’s submarine-launched missile test, Chinese and Russian warships will be patrolling the same ocean together.

The fracturing of Western cohesion that Moscow and Beijing are testing from the outside may be, in at least one allied capital, being accelerated from within, according to an explosive legal case. As The Bureau reported last month, Raquel Garbers — the principal architect of Canada’s 2024 continental defense policy, Our North, Strong and Free, the framework built to defend the North American Arctic alongside American allies — was fired weeks after publishing an opinion piece warning that Ottawa’s anti-American rhetoric was splitting the Western alliance and handing a gift to Beijing and Moscow.

Two days after her warning appeared, Canada’s foreign minister, Anita Anand, stood in Beijing and declared China a strategic partner — a sharp reversal for a government that three years earlier had branded it a “disruptive global power.” Weeks later, Garbers was declared surplus. Her wrongful-dismissal claim, seeking roughly $2 million in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges that rationale was false, and her lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, told The Bureau the case is built to answer who ordered her removed.

The government has not filed a statement of defense, and the allegations have not been tested in court. But the episode lands on the fault line that Monday’s regionally disruptive missile test and Russia and China’s joint exercises and military activities have exposed: as Beijing demonstrates a capability that reaches North America and Chinese and Russian vessels probe the Arctic approaches Canada’s defense policy was written to guard, Ottawa has pivoted toward Beijing — and, Garbers’s claim alleges, silenced the official who warned where that road leads.

Each development has a plausible local explanation on its own: a routine deterrence test, a familiar hybrid-warfare playbook, an incremental polar partnership, a personnel decision in a national capital.

Together they describe something closer to a coordinated stress test of the postwar security order on three fronts at once, arriving as Washington’s bandwidth and credibility are themselves openly debated in allied capitals — and as at least one of those allies moves, by its own government’s declaration, closer to the power conducting the test.

https://www.thebureau.news/p/beijings-long-range-missile-test?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1444443&post_id=205504116&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Now There's Kamala Harris's Preposterous, Content-Free Independence Day Spew

RedState 

Q: How can you tell when Kamala Harris is being disingenuous?

A: Her X account has a new post.

Look, a lot of political folks took to X to mark the occasion of the 250th year of American liberty, and that's perfectly appropriate. Kamala Harris, mind you, has her eye on the main chance - the 2028 presidential nomination - and she's trying frantically to remain relevant. On this occasion, she put out an X post to mark the occasion, which would be fine, if it weren't that she's just so bad at it.

Here, look:

She (or a similarly inept staffer) writes:

When America is at our best, we look out for one another and know that we have much more in common than what separates us. That idea has been fundamental to the fabric of our nation since our founding.

As we celebrate 250 years, let us always commit to honoring the progress we have made and continuing our fight to ensure the promise of America belongs to all of us.

Content. Free. This is pablum, delivered in typical Kamala word salad style. The only scrap of unintentional honesty in that statement is in the last sentence, which concludes: "...to ensure the promise of America belongs to all of us." As someone who has been reading and listening to Democrat talking points for almost half a century now, I can translate that as "...to ensure the equal distribution of misery by punishing success and rewarding failure."

Honestly, doesn't the former vice president have even one staffer who took one semester of high school English?

X, as one might expect, lit the former VP up. First, on the Biden administration's non-enforcement of border and immigration laws:

Then, on the terminally woke policies pushed by the Biden/Harris administration:

There's a lot more.

Look, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election, the United States of America didn't just dodge a bullet. We dodged the entire annual output of every ammunition factory on the planet, and then some. We dodged enough bullets to fill the Gulf of America with lead. Every day, with every statement the Queen of Word Salads makes, it becomes more and more apparent how lucky we are that she will never be president.

Except, of course, that she's still among the Democratic Party's frontrunners for 2028. Good grief.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.